The Town of Jupiter, Florida v Endeavour Capital Limited

In the High Court of New Zealand, the plaintiff, The Town of Jupiter, Florida, has brought an action against the first defendant, Endeavour Capital Limited, and the second defendant, Neville Jordan, for the recovery of a liquidated sum of money. The plaintiff claims that the first defendant owes the plaintiff $206,550.52 plus interest and costs, under a Settlement Agreement entered into in 2014. The plaintiff also claims that the second defendant, as guarantor of the Settlement Agreement, owes the same amount. Initially, the plaintiff sought judgment under rule 15.16 of the High Court Rules, which allows for judgment to be sealed when an admission on a cause of action has been filed. However, this was declined by the Registrar because the supporting documents were unsigned copies. The plaintiff then sought judgment by default under rule 15.7 of the High Court Rules, which allows for judgment to be sealed if the relief claimed is payment of a liquidated demand and the defendant does not file a statement of defence within the required time frame. The duty judge, Mallon J, declined to enter judgment by default at this stage because there were issues with the service of the statement of claim and disclosure on the second defendant, and because it appeared that the second defendant had not signed the guarantee as pleaded.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether judgment should be entered by default under rule 15.7 of the High Court Rules. The court considered whether the relief claimed was a liquidated demand and whether the defendants had failed to file a statement of defence within the required time frame. The court also considered whether there were any issues that needed to be resolved before judgment could be entered by default, such as the service of the statement of claim and disclosure on the second defendant, and whether the second defendant had signed the guarantee as pleaded. The court held that, in light of these matters, the application for a default judgment would need to go to a formal proof hearing before the Associate Judge.

The court concluded that, while the relief claimed was a liquidated demand and the defendants had not filed a statement of defence, there were issues that needed to be resolved before judgment could be entered by default. The court noted that the affidavit of service indicated that the initial disclosure was accepted for service by the second defendant at Wellington Regional Hospital, which raised a question about why service at the hospital was necessary and whether the second defendant had been in a position to respond to the statement of claim. The court also noted that the claim against the second defendant was based upon a guarantee, but it appeared that the second defendant had not signed the guarantee as pleaded. The court held that these matters needed elaboration and that the application for a default judgment would need to go to a formal proof hearing before the Associate Judge. The court directed that any affidavit evidence relied on in support of the entry of judgment and submissions would need to be filed five working days before that hearing.

The court did not make any orders in this case. The court directed that the application for a default judgment would need to go to a formal proof hearing before the Associate Judge. The court directed that any affidavit evidence relied on in support of the entry of judgment and submissions would need to be filed five working days before that hearing.